[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y73mvsYpEv8FxXPR@spud>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 22:29:18 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@...osinc.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
palmer@...osinc.com, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, linux@...osinc.com,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: elf: add .riscv.attributes parsing
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 02:16:58PM -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 1/10/23 14:04, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:18:41PM -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> # code under CONFIG_COMPAT
> > You can drop this, even if it reported against a private branch AFAIU,
> > just like its complaints about patches. As Greg would say, LKP didn't
> > report a feature!
>
> OK. Personally I tend to add Tested-by (vs. Reported-by for the same
> reasons) to still give them the credit for finding some issue.
> I can certainly drop it.
What I've seen Greg say is that you don't add "Reported-by" if someone
tells you your patch doesn't compile, so why would you for the build
robots.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists